Rural–Urban Differences in Non-Local Primary Care Utilization among People with Osteoarthritis: The Role of Area-Level Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The utilization of non-local primary care physicians (PCP) is a key primary care indicator identified by Alberta Health to support evidence-based healthcare planning. This study aims to identify area-level factors that are significantly associated with non-local PCP utilization and to examine if these associations vary between rural and urban areas. We examined rural-urban differences in the associations between non-local PCP utilization and area-level factors using multivariate linear regression and geographically weighted regression (GWR) models. Global Moran's I and Gi* hot spot analyses were applied to identify spatial autocorrelation and hot spots/cold spots of non-local PCP utilization. We observed significant rural-urban differences in the non-local PCP utilization. Both GWR and multivariate linear regression model identified two significant factors (median travel time and percentage of low-income families) with non-local PCP utilization in both rural and urban areas. Discontinuity of care was significantly associated with non-local PCP in the southwest, while the percentage of people having university degree was significant in the north of Alberta. This research will help identify gaps in the utilization of local primary care and provide evidence for health care planning by targeting policies at associated factors to reduce gaps in OA primary care provision.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".